The arrogant renewable energy folks had a "forum" this week. On the day of the "forum" a renewable energy news outlet ran a series of three obnoxious articles telling people that the electric transmission grid is outdated and overly congested. The solution? Lots more new transmission "for renewables." (read wind).
This is never going to happen. The reasons why are clear, if slightly beyond the thought capacity of an industry that continues to lie to itself. Merchant transmission has been a gigantic failure. The articles gush on about troubled projects that have racked up one failure after another, while also noting the complete failure ("the wheels came off") of many others. News flash: They're all going to fail eventually! Not one "renewable" merchant transmission project has been built. They can't be built.
Reasons why include:
1. No customers to pay for them! Even when Clean Line thought it had the green light for its Plains & Eastern project, it failed to attract any customers to pay for it, and Clean Line bailed at the first opportunity to unload this cash cow onto a utility wannabe who thought it could use part of the project as leverage to profit off a real utility's plan to construct a wind farm and the world's longest generation tie line.
2. RTO's are not designed to facilitate exports. RTO's are purposed to serve their region and therefore costs of serving the region are visited upon the consumers in that region. Exporting electricity to other regions does not serve anyone in the region. Asking different regions to build new transmission to patch regions together to serve the renewable energy industry doesn't benefit anyone in any of the regions either. One article even claims that new "renewable" transmission lines "represent potential overhead cash registers for their owners." So, this is all about an industry cashing in for their own benefit? But yet...
3. "Some" landowners oppose transmission. Why the modifier "some?" What is that supposed to represent anyhow? That only a handful of landowners object to superrich investors and foreign corporations erecting an "overhead cash register" on their land using the power of eminent domain to take private property? Sorry, but you're wrong about "some," if that's supposed to mean a small number. Eminent domain for private gain is widely opposed by both affected and unaffected landowners. Only "some" landowners are in favor of it, those who don't live on the land and are looking for a quick payday, or perhaps those who obliviously believe they're going to be richly compensated for the use of their land (or quid pro quo payments for being a public advocate for the transmission project).
Or perhaps "some" is an attempt at denying the power of landowners to derail transmission proposals? Even though landowners were the biggest impediment to Clean Line's projects, Clean Line still wants to claim its projects failed due to the efforts of "a major utility, and prominent state politicians" and "some landowners." As if the landowners were not the impetus for the political opposition, and as if a major utility opposed more than one of Clean Line's projects? It was the landowners, Sherlock! They are powerful, and they are the primary reason transmission projects are cancelled. Wasn't it Sun Tzu who said "know your enemy"? Denying the power of your most stalwart enemy is a fool's paradise.
Here's the basic truth: Eminent domain for the purpose of erecting an "overhead cash register" on private property is frowned upon. Sure, there was that awful Supreme Court decision that eminent domain could be used for "economic development" purposes, but that came with overwhelming backlash. Eminent domain's historical use by utilities to serve all customers cannot be extended to erect "overhead cash registers" on private property. New "renewable" transmission isn't necessary to provide electricity. The grid we have is managing to keep the light on (for the most part). One person's desire to obtain a different kind of electricity does not override another person's right to own and enjoy property. If a company desires to erect an "overhead cash register" on private property, it's going to need landowner buy in.
How to get there? It's not any of the ways renewable energy companies and environmentalists have proposed. Landowner aggregation schemes, increased easement payments, even royalties, are not adequate for "some" landowners. "Some" landowners simply do not want to sell an easement for any reason. The "eking out and incremental solutions" (in the words of Jayshree Desai, former CLEPT-O, now spending some other investors money as ConnectGen) doesn't reside in erecting "overhead cash registers" on private property. It resides in new ideas for buried transmission on existing rights of way, along railroads or highways. That's the solution. That's the way to "...figure out longer-haul, bulk transmission to really change the fundamental supply-demand balance of renewables in this country," Ms. Jayshree. Jayshree and her band of Don Quixotes wasted more than $200M of investor cash trying to build "overhead cash registers" on private property. And still one of the Dons persists because he can't pull his head out of the clouds (or another place closer to the ground).
Overhead merchant transmission is dead! The renewable energy industry and its environmental sycophants should should stop wasting their money and efforts on "overhead cash registers" and invest it in underground solutions. The cost of these solution must be borne by the beneficiaries, in this case it's the renewable energy industry, or its customers. The rest of us aren't going to pay for it. You want to make money? You gotta spend money! The answer is at hand. Don't make me grab you by the scruff of your neck and rub your nose in it.
This is never going to happen. The reasons why are clear, if slightly beyond the thought capacity of an industry that continues to lie to itself. Merchant transmission has been a gigantic failure. The articles gush on about troubled projects that have racked up one failure after another, while also noting the complete failure ("the wheels came off") of many others. News flash: They're all going to fail eventually! Not one "renewable" merchant transmission project has been built. They can't be built.
Reasons why include:
1. No customers to pay for them! Even when Clean Line thought it had the green light for its Plains & Eastern project, it failed to attract any customers to pay for it, and Clean Line bailed at the first opportunity to unload this cash cow onto a utility wannabe who thought it could use part of the project as leverage to profit off a real utility's plan to construct a wind farm and the world's longest generation tie line.
2. RTO's are not designed to facilitate exports. RTO's are purposed to serve their region and therefore costs of serving the region are visited upon the consumers in that region. Exporting electricity to other regions does not serve anyone in the region. Asking different regions to build new transmission to patch regions together to serve the renewable energy industry doesn't benefit anyone in any of the regions either. One article even claims that new "renewable" transmission lines "represent potential overhead cash registers for their owners." So, this is all about an industry cashing in for their own benefit? But yet...
3. "Some" landowners oppose transmission. Why the modifier "some?" What is that supposed to represent anyhow? That only a handful of landowners object to superrich investors and foreign corporations erecting an "overhead cash register" on their land using the power of eminent domain to take private property? Sorry, but you're wrong about "some," if that's supposed to mean a small number. Eminent domain for private gain is widely opposed by both affected and unaffected landowners. Only "some" landowners are in favor of it, those who don't live on the land and are looking for a quick payday, or perhaps those who obliviously believe they're going to be richly compensated for the use of their land (or quid pro quo payments for being a public advocate for the transmission project).
Or perhaps "some" is an attempt at denying the power of landowners to derail transmission proposals? Even though landowners were the biggest impediment to Clean Line's projects, Clean Line still wants to claim its projects failed due to the efforts of "a major utility, and prominent state politicians" and "some landowners." As if the landowners were not the impetus for the political opposition, and as if a major utility opposed more than one of Clean Line's projects? It was the landowners, Sherlock! They are powerful, and they are the primary reason transmission projects are cancelled. Wasn't it Sun Tzu who said "know your enemy"? Denying the power of your most stalwart enemy is a fool's paradise.
Here's the basic truth: Eminent domain for the purpose of erecting an "overhead cash register" on private property is frowned upon. Sure, there was that awful Supreme Court decision that eminent domain could be used for "economic development" purposes, but that came with overwhelming backlash. Eminent domain's historical use by utilities to serve all customers cannot be extended to erect "overhead cash registers" on private property. New "renewable" transmission isn't necessary to provide electricity. The grid we have is managing to keep the light on (for the most part). One person's desire to obtain a different kind of electricity does not override another person's right to own and enjoy property. If a company desires to erect an "overhead cash register" on private property, it's going to need landowner buy in.
How to get there? It's not any of the ways renewable energy companies and environmentalists have proposed. Landowner aggregation schemes, increased easement payments, even royalties, are not adequate for "some" landowners. "Some" landowners simply do not want to sell an easement for any reason. The "eking out and incremental solutions" (in the words of Jayshree Desai, former CLEPT-O, now spending some other investors money as ConnectGen) doesn't reside in erecting "overhead cash registers" on private property. It resides in new ideas for buried transmission on existing rights of way, along railroads or highways. That's the solution. That's the way to "...figure out longer-haul, bulk transmission to really change the fundamental supply-demand balance of renewables in this country," Ms. Jayshree. Jayshree and her band of Don Quixotes wasted more than $200M of investor cash trying to build "overhead cash registers" on private property. And still one of the Dons persists because he can't pull his head out of the clouds (or another place closer to the ground).
Overhead merchant transmission is dead! The renewable energy industry and its environmental sycophants should should stop wasting their money and efforts on "overhead cash registers" and invest it in underground solutions. The cost of these solution must be borne by the beneficiaries, in this case it's the renewable energy industry, or its customers. The rest of us aren't going to pay for it. You want to make money? You gotta spend money! The answer is at hand. Don't make me grab you by the scruff of your neck and rub your nose in it.
RSS Feed